on 5/27/2000 1:56 AM, Frank Conradie at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have a working DBInterbase class for Turbine that I am using for a project
> and wish to contribute, however, I have the following query regarding the DB
> classes:
>
> I see that the following DBxxx's do not implement lockTable and unlockTable:
> DBDB2App
> DBDB2Net
> DBInstantDB
> DBNone
> DBPostgres
yep.
> DBWeblogic
this one can't really do it since you don't know what database you are
connecting to. this is essentially a pool of a pool of connections.
> ...and the following do:
> DBMM
> DBOracle
these two are the "tested" ones...
> DBSybase
i'm not sure this one is correct. i think it was just copied from DBOracle.
> I understand the importance of table locking in IDBroker to prevent sync
> problems when getting/updating unique id's, so why are so many not
> implementing this? The db's that only support table-level locking are OK,
> but I'm sure not all of those fall into this category.
only because people have not come along and implemented them. I personally
only care about Oracle (less) and MySQL (more).
> I did notice this comment by the author: "Originally I was thinking of
> locking tables on select/update but have some other ideas now." - Frank Y.
> Kim
> What is the status of this?
will have to wait for frank to respond.
> The reason I'm asking is because table locking in Interbase is proving to be
> difficult to fit into the current lock/unlock model. It does have a good
> GENERATOR concept though that is similar to Oracle's SEQUENCES, and which
> works quite well. I would just like to cover all the bases, since one should
> be able to choose "use.autoincrement.id" or not :-)
true...not sure how to solve the problem since i don't use interbase...
-jon
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
